Safety issues in the lives of children with learning disabilities
Freda Briggs, AO
Emeritus Professor: Child Development
University of South Australia, Magill Campus[1]
Abstract
Quantitative and qualitative data were collected from 116 special education students aged 11–17 years (61 females and 55 males) who had been identified as 3 or more years behind their peers in all aspects of the curriculum. The study confirmed the vulnerability of children with learning disabilities to the risks of drugs, violence, psychological bullying, pornography and sexual abuse. Significant levels of violence were found in both schools and homes. The study also showed the need for special attention for the protection of boys. It is possible that children with learning disabilities were targeted because they were less likely than others to (a) recognise abuse as wrong, (b) understand their rights and report abuse, and (c) be regarded as competent witnesses for court proceedings. On the other hand, it is possible that they were learning-disabled as a result of abuse. The findings suggested that children with learning disabilities require more vigilant and more intensive, explicit forms of protection than other children.
INTRODUCTION
The particular vulnerability of children with disabilities to all forms of abuse was brought to public notice in the 1980s. American and Canadian studies suggested that these children are up to seven times more likely to be sexually abused than their non-disabled peers (Senn 1988, Kennedy 1989, Mounty and Fetterman 1989, Sullivan et al. 1987).
The literature suggests that children with disabilities are at highest risk of all forms of abuse because they are devalued by society in general (Sobsey 1994). They were found to be the least well informed about their rights, their sexuality and the limits of acceptable social behaviour (Sobsey 1994, Senn 1988). They are inadequately protected by the justice system and child welfare agencies and lack self-esteem and the confidence to complain (Sobsey 1994, Briggs 1995). Furthermore, there is a high risk that abuse will continue into adulthood (Sobsey 1994). Research by Kennedy (1990) showed that the victimisation of children with disabilities compounds the low self-esteem, emotional problems, sense of helplessness, frustration, anger, depression, fearfulness and withdrawal associated with their disabilities.
In the 1980s, many countries introduced child protection curricula following the initiatives of some Canadian and American education departments. Victoria Police and South Australian education authorities adopted the Wisconsin Protective Behaviours programme in May 1985. Michelle Elliott’s Kidscape was made available in the United Kingdom in 1986 offering “good sense defence” for 5–11-year-olds to counter bullying and dangerous strangers. Canadian academics, teachers and parents had already created the CARE Kit, which was independently evaluated with young children.
New Zealand Police and the Ministry of Education rightly rejected “packaged” overseas programmes and worked together to produce a developmentally and culturally appropriate curriculum, Keeping Ourselves Safe, which now caters for all ages from kindergarten to school-leaving. It alsoincorporates parent information and opportunities for their participation, videos and other teaching resources covering all aspects of safety. This national school-based curriculum is delivered by teachers. They are supported by health coordinators and 138 specialist trained police education officers who provide several safety programmes for schools.
Briggs and Hawkins (1996b) evaluated the curriculum with 252 intermediate school children aged 11 and 12 years and their parents in both North and South Islands. Children identified as having severe learning problems were at greatest risk of all forms of abuse and exposure to illegal drugs, pornography (63% versus 24% of others), drug abuse (50% versus 12%) and sexual abuse (81% versus 4%). Eighty-one per cent of girls in special education groups for learning disabilities had previously reported substantiated sexual offences committed by from two to 10 offenders before the age of 11. In all cases, students had been shown pornography to stimulate their curiosity, desensitise them and normalise deviant sex. Disclosures were made following their participation in Keeping Ourselves Safe.
Although the school programme has parent participation built into it, children with learning disabilities were the ones least likely to have had any conversations with parents about personal safety issues (44% versus 82% of others). Clearly, it is more difficult for staff to communicate effectively with parents if children travel by school bus. Communications are even harder to achieve if parents also have learning disabilities and are illiterate. Most abuse was committed by mothers’ boyfriends, siblings and uncles. Only one student in this group was sexually abused by her biological father. The low rate of father–daughter incest could possibly be explained by the fact that most students in this group had little or no contact with their fathers.
The researchers were concerned about the safety of boys, many of whom stated that child protection programmes were irrelevant to them because only girls and homosexuals are sexually abused. A previous study of safety issues for New Zealand secondary students (Briggs and Hawkins 2001) supported these concerns and also showed that boys would be afraid to disclose abuse by males because of confusion about their sexuality, embarrassment and the fear of (a) being disbelieved; (b) violent retribution and (c) being labelled as gay and bullied by peers.
Because of the finding that girls with learning disabilities were so highly vulnerable to drug and sexual abuse and violence, the present study was extended in 2003/2004 to examine more closely safety issues affecting children with learning disabilities (both boys and girls).
METHOD
One hundred and sixteen subjects (all the available students) were interviewed individually in special education centres using the 1996 questionnaire designed for intermediate school children. Issues for boys (N = 55) were then compared with issues for girls (N = 61).
The period of time that subjects had spent in special education ranged from five weeks to two years. Before that, all subjects previously attended mainstream schools in both the North and SouthIslands of New Zealand. A few older respondents continued to attend the local mainstream school in a part-time capacity. All participants had an individually designed curriculum to cater for the fact that they were at least three years behind their chronological age group in all areas. Some were diagnosed as having ADD or ADHD, one with Down Syndrome, and one was brain damaged as a result of physical abuse in infancy. Some had minor intellectual disabilities. The ages of respondents ranged from 11 to 17 years (mean age = 13.8, SD = 1.3). There were slightly more girls (61, or 53%) than boys (55, or 47%). Almost half the respondents were of European descent (51%), with 24% Māori and 23% Māori/mixed race.
RESULTS
Students’ Views on Who Should Teach Personal Safety Skills
Nearly all of the students (96%) said that personal safety skills should be taught in schools to help children to stay safe from the risk of sexual abuse. Police Education Officers were chosen as the best people to conduct this teaching.
Table 1 Professionals Regarded as the Most Suitable for Teaching Personal Safety Skills
Type of Person / N / %*Police Education Officer / 72 / 66
Class teacher / 25 / 23
Parents / 14 / 13
School counsellor / 11 / 10
School nurse / 5 / 5
Health coordinator / 2 / 2
*Percentages add to more than 100 as some respondents nominated more than one choice.
The popularity of Police Education Officers was attributed to their knowledge of the world of adolescents, their experience of abuse and abusers, and the belief that they can be trusted with confidential information. Some students explained that teachers were remote from the world of adolescents and could not be trusted to maintain confidentiality.
Violence at School
Students were asked to assess and compare the levels of violence experienced in special education units versus mainstream schools. Although some had anger management problems requiring medication, children with learning disabilities said they experienced more violence in mainstream schools (47%) than in separate single-sex special education centres (34%). There were no sex differences on this variable.
Violence at Home
One-quarter of respondents thought there was a lot of violence in their own homes. Males (male carers or brothers) were reported as being the most frequent users of physical violence against children with learning problems in the family home
Table 3 Ratings of Violence Level at Home
Violence Level At Home / N / %A lot of violence / 29 / 25
Not much violence / 41 / 35
No violence / 46 / 40
Table 4 Frequency of Particular People Hitting Children in the Home
People Identified as Hitting / N / %Male carer / 47 / 41
Mother / 34 / 29
Brothers / 17 / 15
Why Children Were Hit at Home
Children gave various reasons for why they were hit at home. There were no consistent sex differences in the pattern revealed. These children with special needs were shown to be very vulnerable to the aggression of irritable adults and siblings. When students were asked what they might have done to deserve being hit, their responses included the following:
“I do nothing to get bashed. It’s because they are in a shitty mood and take it out of me. I’ve run away for a few days. My parents don’t really care.”
“I don’t have to do anything except be there when they’re in a bad mood.”
“He just feels like it and loses it but only with me. I don’t have to do anything.”
“Dad does it for the hell of it. He’s an angry man and takes it out on us.”
Some children admitted being punished for serious misdemeanors:
“I get belted because I smoke and sell weed.”
“I get belted for pulling pranks such as toothpasting pillows ... breaking into next door and flooding their bathroom; setting off car alarms to piss off shopkeepers.”
“I did stupid stuff – set fire deliberately to houses.”
Others referred to being punished for “answering back”, “being smart”, swearing at parents and teasing siblings.
Bullying at School
Although bullying was considered to be a big problem for many children with learning disabilities in special education (38%), it was more frequently perceived to be a problem when they attended a mainstream school (56%).
Name-calling and teasing were most frequently identified by girls (60%) and boys (57%) as the most distressing form of bullying. Spreading false, unpleasant, sex-related rumours (such as “She’s got AIDS”, “She’s a lesbian”, “She’s a prostitute”, “She’s promiscuous”) and insults relating to body appearance (fat, ugly) were twice as prevalent among girls (13%) than boys (6%), who were usually referred to as “poofter” or homosexual to create distress.
Drug Abuse
Boys were significantly more likely to have been offered various major types of drugs than girls.
Table 7 Drugs Types Offered to Students by Sex
Drug / FemaleN % / Male
N % / Total
N % / Chi Square Result
Alcohol / 16 / 26% / 31 / 57% / 47 / 41% / 2 = 11.52, df = 1, p = .001
Cigarettes / 16 / 26% / 27 / 50% / 43 / 37% / 2 = 6.91, df = 1, p = .009
Marijuana / 15 / 25% / 26 / 48% / 41 / 36% / 2 = 6.92, df = 1, p = .008
Heroin / 3 / 5% / 12 / 22% / 15 / 13% / 2 = 7.56, df = 1, p = .006
Speed / 5 / 8% / 9 / 17% / 14 / 12% / NS
Cocaine / 0 / 0% / 7 / 13% / 7 / 6% / 2 = 8.42, df = 1, p = .004
Table 8 shows reported drug use patterns (drug use may be understated given students’ awareness that drug trafficking is illegal).
Table 8 Drugs Used
Drug / N / %Alcohol / 67 / 58%
Marijuana / 40 / 35%
Vivid markers / 32 / 28%
Petrol / 32 / 28%
Other people’s asthma medication / 19 / 16%
Amphetamines / 17 / 15%
Ecstasy or Fantasy / 11 / 10%
None / 16 / 14%
Exposure to Pornography
Almost two-thirds of the students (63%) reported having seen hardcore pornography. Magazines and videos were the most frequent source of such material
The Risk of Abduction by Strangers
Twenty cases (or 17%) reported that a stranger had tried (unsuccessfully) to persuade them to accompany them. There was no significant difference in the frequency with which this had happened to boys and to girls. The common theme for both girls and boys was an attempt by a male stranger to get the children into their car.
The Risk of Child Sexual Abuse
While school counsellors indicated that 44% of girls were victims of (substantiated) sexual abuse, only 32% of female respondents disclosed these offences to researchers. Offences against girls included oral and vaginal rape by stepfathers, older brothers, mothers’ boyfriends, an uncle and a girlfriend’s adult brother. For boys, cases included sexual intercourse with older females, masturbation by a babysitter (older female) and being required to provide oral and anal sex for males.
It is important to note that sexual abuse was equally common for boys and girls. Older youths were responsible for sex offences in a little over half of the cases (54%) and the other people identified included stepfathers (four cases) mothers’ boyfriends (three cases) and family friends (six cases).
Two boys and one girl referred to sex with “boy friends” or “girl friends” aged from 21–33 years. It appeared that parents and caseworkers were aware of this and that it is against the law, suggesting that different standards exist for children with learning disabilities.
The risks to girls with learning disabilities are illustrated in the following statements. Most reports involved father figures:
“My stepfather used to rape me when I was 11. He told me to keep it secret so I did. Mum caught him redhanded. She reported him to police and kicked him out.”
“The rape was reported. He lied and denied it, went to court and got off.”
“Mum’s boyfriend. I reported it to school staff. He went to court.”
“My mum told me I was only five when it happened. She told me about it because he was being released from jail.”
“I can hardly remember it. He threatened to hurt Mum if I told.”
“I reported Mum’s boyfriend for raping me and he went to court. Mum supported and absconded with him leaving me in foster care. I haven’t seen them for five years.”
Some girls reported being raped by older brothers. Other relatives and family friends were also mentioned. Older youths allegedly raped or had what female victims described as “consensual sex”:
“It was my friend who persuaded me. Seven boys watched. She asked me to let her adult brother have sex with me. I did it to please my friend. My Mum would have a fit. You won’t tell her, will you?”
“I was 15. An older boy asked me out. He wanted sex and when I said ‘No’ he took no notice and did it. He raped me several times before I ditched him.”
Only two boys reported rape. Boys were comfortable discussing offences involving “wanking”, a term that is used in their everyday language. Boys typically did not report this type of offence.
“Wanking is a private thing. I didn’t tell because they’d get into trouble and get at me for telling.”
“Older boys in this school told me to go into the toilet yesterday at PE time and help them with wanking.”
Twenty-two per cent of respondents reported that “kids at school” had used force or tricks to involve them in underage sex. This was equally likely to happen to boys and girls.
The Reporting of Sexual Abuse
In 23 cases (62% of abuse cases), the child reported abuse to a trusted adult. Girls were significantly more likely than boys to report sexual abuse. Most girls disclosed abuse to their mothers and/or police. Some mothers ignored reports or defended the perpetrators. Six girls and no boys were involved in prosecutions. There were also several comments that “nothing happened” following a report being made to police.
Two students (a boy and a girl) could not participate in the study because they had just reported intra-familial abuse and were being counselled. Two boys and one girl reported abuse during the research (the two reports from boys to a principal were the result of reports to the interviewer).
Students found it difficult to report sexual misbehaviour involving older youths. The most common reasons given for not reporting were the fear of violent retribution, embarrassment and being disbelieved. One boy who did not report said that he had been threatened that he would be killed if he “told”. One girl said she would be in trouble if she told her parents. Male students also found it difficult to report abuse because of the stigma relating to (implied) homosexuality. No cases involving older youths were said to have gone to court.
Understanding Their Rights in Relation to Sexual Abuse
Students exhibited some confusion about rights and responsibilities in relation to sexual behaviour; 7% thought it was “OK” for adults to use children for sex and 10% were unsure. Although 79% said that it was not acceptable, some qualified this by suggesting that it could be acceptable if victims were of certain ages (none of the ages falling within legal limits). Those who had completed a personal safety/child protection programme were more likely (55.2%) than others (12.1%) to know that adults are not allowed to “do sex things to kids”.
Fifty-eight per cent of girls and no boys provided mature responses referring to the damage that sexual abuse can cause: “It might spoil children’s lives when they are older”; “it affects them forever”; “it scars them”; “it damages you forever” – suggesting that these issues had been discussed in school. Some girls referred to unfairness in adults’ abuse of power and one noted that adults should protect children, not abuse them. Thirteen per cent of girls and no boys explained that sexual abuse can be psychologically damaging.